Blocking or slowing of web content to be legal. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14863970
The head of the Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil plans next week for a final vote to reverse a landmark 2015 net neutrality order barring the blocking or slowing of web content.
What does this mean?

In May, the FCC voted 2-1 to advance Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to withdraw the former Obama administration’s order reclassifying internet service providers as if they were utilities. Pai now plans to hold a final vote on the proposal at the FCC’s Dec. 14 meeting, the people said, and roll out details of the plans next week.

Pai asked in May for public comment on whether the FCC has authority or should keep any regulations limiting internet providers’ ability to block, throttle or offer “fast lanes” to some websites, known as “paid prioritization.” Several industry officials told Reuters they expect Pai to drop those specific legal requirements but retain some transparency requirements under the order.

An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

Internet providers including AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc say ending the rules could spark billions in additional broadband investment and eliminate the possibility a future administration could regulate internet pricing.

Critics say the move could harm consumers, small businesses and access to the internet.

In July, a group representing major technology firms including Alphabet Inc and Facebook Inc urged Pai to drop plans to rescind the rules.

Advocacy group Free Press said Wednesday “we’ll learn the gory details in the next few days, but we know that Pai intends to dismantle the basic protections that have fueled the internet’s growth.”

Pai, who argues the Obama order was unnecessary and harms jobs and investment, has not committed to retaining any rules, but said he favors an “open internet.” The proposal to reverse the Obama rules reclassifying internet service has drawn more than 22 million comments.

Pai is mounting an aggressive deregulatory agenda since being named by President Donald Trump to head the FCC.

On Thursday the FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal to eliminate the 42-year-old ban on cross-ownership of a newspaper and TV station in a major market. The proposal would make it easier for media companies to buy additional TV stations in the same market.

Pai is also expected to call for an initial vote in December to rescind rules that say one company may not own stations serving more than 39 percent of U.S. television households, two people briefed on the matter said.




https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN1DJ005
#14864393
anarchist23 wrote:The head of the Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil plans next week for a final vote to reverse a landmark 2015 net neutrality order barring the blocking or slowing of web content.
What does this mean?

It means that the ruling elite are completely bankrupt of ideas and have concluded that the only "solution" is the propagation of fear and ignorance.

This isn't the first time a capitalist elite has concluded this. America, Canada, Australia and Israel were all created by a mixture of fear and ignorance. It's a winning formula from the past that comes back in style whenever we're on the verge of transforming into something better than capitalism and consumerism.

Blocking and slowing alternative and new ideas... will ensure that the public is ignorant of its own cultural and intellectual production.
#14864414
This article isn't very informative. Giving priority to certain types of data can make sense technically (though I personally support net neutrality as a matter of principle). Either way, I don't see providers having an interest in blocking content, most likely they want to charge extra for the "fast lane". Typical big business move, as one would expect from Trump. We'll have to see how the FCC plan looks like.
#14864418
Rugoz wrote:This article isn't very informative. Giving priority to certain types of data can make sense technically (though I personally support net neutrality as a matter of principle). Either way, I don't see providers having an interest in blocking content, most likely they want to charge extra for the "fast lane". Typical big business move, as one would expect from Trump. We'll have to see how the FCC plan looks like.


:coffee: u srs?
#14864420
Saeko wrote::coffee: u srs?


Yes, unless they're legally forced to, why should they block content? It's the best way the lose your customers to the competition. I'm talking about ISPs here, not about Google which has a natural monopoly and is obviously under political pressure.
#14864454
Rugoz wrote:Yes, unless they're legally forced to, why should they block content? It's the best way the lose your customers to the competition. I'm talking about ISPs here, not about Google which has a natural monopoly and is obviously under political pressure.


:coffee: u srs?
#14864462
Saeko wrote::coffee: u srs?


A potential issue I see, is that content providers will try to bundle their content with ISPs, respectively the ISPs themselves will become content providers and block out others. I'm not sure that has actually happened in the absence of net neutrality rules. Do you have examples? The distinction between discrimination and blocking is of course somewhat of a technicality, at least for content where quality of service is dependent on sufficient bandwidth.
#14864658
Rugoz wrote:A potential issue I see, is that content providers will try to bundle their content with ISPs, respectively the ISPs themselves will become content providers and block out others. I'm not sure that has actually happened in the absence of net neutrality rules. Do you have examples? The distinction between discrimination and blocking is of course somewhat of a technicality, at least for content where quality of service is dependent on sufficient bandwidth.


You poor naive fool. Internet Service Pimps will hike up your skirts and put you out on the street for that advertiser dough. They're going to block content unless you either pay them more money or watch 50 hours of ads.

Image
#14865237
If this passes, video streaming companies like Netflix and Hulu will be seeing not only a decrease in streaming quality but their consumer base is likely to plummet. Most Americans will not want to pay more to stream movies. They will likely decide to discontinue those services and rely more on brick and mortar video rental stores and their local libraries. Amazon might take a hit too but at least their Prime service isn't just about streaming video.
#14865414
Indeed!

The US has the highest price for the slowest internet in the industrial world because the big companies make the most money from charging as much as possible for the slowest service.

Trump presupposes that maybe letting these same companies charge even more for even slower services will result in the companies throwing every cent they have into a community pot for no apparent reason.

...let’s see who is right
#14865422
I see it only as positive.

Internet was created as the military system of communication back in sixties. The web was a home project in CERN almost thirty years ago. Both of the concepts obsoleted since this and even when they were modern and fresh, they were never designed to be world-wide independent system of communications. The faster they die, the sooner humanity will develop systems without this super-centralized government controlled shit, the sooner people will move to dark web and dark net.
#14865764
@anarchist23 in your opinion do you think there will be some sort of fight about access and it will be weird like Bitcoin and cryptocurrency and no control from central governments and it will just re-align all kinds of competing interests....?

It is interesting how so many music industry corporations are just frustrated with access to freebie music and they came up with nostalgia for vinyl records and let us go back to the 20th century when controlling intellectual property was a lot easier?

What is your opinion? Are we going to have to pay to not hear commercials, advertisements, and have access to good information and have to give up part of our salaries to be able to have access to information?
#14865766
Decky wrote:I guess this hive of troublesome non regular political views will be closed to the yanks. The posting quality will go up tenfold!


I want to hear about your opinion Decky on troublesome posting from the Yanks? What do you dislike about their 'style'? I know what I don't like--but I want to hear about yours instead. Go ahead tell me? :D
#14865772
@Tainari88
I know little about Bitcoin/crypto currency.

There would be mega bucks made if we were charged to use the internet. For my family of five that would add up. It's not really the adverts that are the issue, it's the speed of the internet, or lack of speed that will be used to pressurise/blackmail us users.


Image
What! No festive cheer on PoFo?

@anasawad The same, but I've already started bo[…]

EU-BREXIT

It's revolutionary indeed that the bondage between[…]

A very rare Israeli interview to the Arab media. U[…]

They grabbed the opportunity pretty soon. 'Let's […]